> No user of this product has ever harmed anyone else as a result of using it
Physical harm is rare in psychedelic experiences. Psychological harm is very, very real and has destroyed peoples lives when they get too carried away using psychedelics. I agree that these compounds should be legal, but to say they are 100% safe is ridiculous.
[1] http://www.simplyamsterdam.nl/French_tourist_in_Amsterdam_co...
Not all externalities of drug use are physical.
I'm extremely pro-legalized everything. I find your callous disregard alarming.
How did you get from there to, Sure, let’s have a Drug War?
How do you know?
That is a ridiculous statement. Anything can harm you, including water. Everything has negative side effects given a large enough dose.
> People should be allowed to harm themselves if they want to
Bear in mind Portugal has healthcare and legalised all drugs.
It's also my understanding that healthcare was a big part of what convinced people in the UK to vote for Brexit.
Now this should not be the end of the story. I understand there are folks who need medical treatment that can not afford it. There should always be a mechanism to make sure folks get the necessary help. I would hope the church or some other private entity would step up -- and often do. If not, then the final catch is the government.
The government taking over the whole health insurance industry is a naive solution that will result in crappy coverage for everyone. I don't claim to have a complete solution -- it is a difficult problem. I don't like extremes in either direction : completely privatized and completely government run are both bad solutions.
This is demonstrably false when you consider the quality of coverage in places like France and Denmark.
I find the fairness argument understandable from a distance, but it falls apart when you look closer and realize the amount of overhead involved in managing such a system where we make sure everyone pays according to their risk profile, which itself, would be dependent on numerous subjective measures not to mention the potential for intentional or unintentional inaccurate reporting. As an example, our tax dollars go to pay for infrastructure whether we're driving on the roads and bridges they pay for or not, and we don't pay more or get refunds if we use more or less roads. Would it be fairer to only charge you for roads you use? Absolutely, but it'd also be a ton of overhead to administer.
I definitely don't agree with this. You are harming your family and friends by harming yourself.
People can care about you.
Edit: the OP removed statement about addiction
What of drinking alcohol? Eating too much food? Riding a bike without a helmet? Taking an antidepressant with known potentially dangerous side effects? Going outside without a jumpsuit made out of Nerf foam? At what point do you get to live your life for yourself instead of avoiding doing things you think others might not want you to do?
I think jumpsuits should be forbidden for the same reason, but that's just a personal opinion.
Given the chances you'll be riding your bike among cars piloted by people on prescription painkillers or alcohol, I'd be surprised if riding a bike isn't significantly more dangerous than taking psilocybin, but once again, there are no good stats on psilocybin-related behavioral results so this is just speculation.
Are you asserting that this is per se the outcome of ingesting psilocybin?
Why should healthy adults take this substance? Many of the so-called experts interviewed in Michel Pollan's new book took psilocybin and believed the experience revealed the inner truths of the universe. It seemns like it could be quite harmful for more people to embrace meta-magical thinking.
Related: 1) Michael Pollan is interviewed on a podcast by Tyler Cowen. They briefly talk about whether psychedelics have contributed to society through novel discoveries. 2) Robert Sapolsky's lectures and book Trouble with Testosterone touch on meta-magical thinking.
What I've found interesting in his book is that the suggestions of the therapist lead basically influence the result. So if someone says what will happen on shrooms you basically have a similar experience. That is interesting.
Further along the meta magical thinking idea is the stoned ape hypothesis which basically tries to explain how we were able to transcend "primitiveness" and develop abstract reasoning and as such technological progress by using psychedelics. Whether there is evidence for this or not I don't know.. haven't read the stoned ape book.. It does seem more plausible that magic mushrooms led to religion. I've been reading Pollan's book as well and the part about AA 12 step and Bill's wanting to use magic mushrooms as part of the process is very interesting. Turns out that the board allegedly wanted to keep the straight religion aspect in it for control vs surrendering yourself to mushrooms. This is partly why psychedelics are being tested on reducing alcoholism.
If it can help alleviate depression and anxiety I am 100% behind it. So much time, energy and life is lost to that mindfuck of a state.
* also we don't really understand the long term implication o f a lot of things we eat or drink or the legal drugs we take. Should you eat eggs? margarine? wine? tea? how much coffee? etc..
Anecdotally, mushrooms are about as likely to disrupt existing patterns of magical thinking as they are to inspire new ones.
The experience of being absolutely certain that your friend in the other room can read your thoughts and the discovery when you come down that no, he was thinking something completely different than you thought is sobering.
The experience of realizing how large the world is, how many people are in it talking at all times, can undermine conspiracy theories that depend on a tiny cabal of people keeping a secret while using hundreds of workers to accomplish a task, like faking the moon landing.
The "inner truths of the universe" that people feel are exposed by mushrooms are so abstract that they're not likely to actually interfere with rational thought. Mushrooms induce a metaphoric mode of thought. Realistically, we are all connected, by atmosphere, ecosphere, society and economy.
It's true that we don't have a solid scientific understanding of the long term implications, but we have a pretty solid population of people who've done mushrooms casually. It's not an uncommon drug.
All that aside, we have an FDA review process so that we can evaluate the safety of a drug. No drug is ever evaluated to see if it has a long-term negative societal effect because of how it alters your world-view. The effects that Depakote, Prozac and Ambien have had on society are likely significant and are largely unknown.
On "metamagical thinking":
I just spent some significant time trying to find out what "metamagical thinking" is supposed to be.
Try it yourself. You'll find many people quoting Sapolsky thus: "It's the shamans who are moving separate from everyone else, living alone, who talk with the dead, who speak in tongues, who go out with the full moon and turn into a hyena overnight, and that sort of stuff. It's the shamans who have all this metamagical thinking." What you won't find is any kind of formal definition of metamagical processes or arguments for the term.
You'll find two places in his book "Biology and Human Behavior" but in each case it is only used as an adjective describing the symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder. In the DSM this is instead described as "magical thinking," no meta involved. In "Trouble with Testosterone" Sapolsky only refers to "magical thinking."
Sapolsky appears to have just added the "meta" as a sort of unthinking affectation for a period of time and to have dropped it later. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary.
I say all this because Hofstadter invented the term "metamagical" to describe a certain kind of highly intellectual examination of the edges of analogy and meaning in rational systems and it's a hell of a phrase. It's a shame to have Sapolsky's non-use replicating across the internet.
Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
But that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk, so obviously there is more to the question of regulation than what risks people feel like they want to take.
Individuals on the other hand don't live forever, the risk of death is 100% for everyone, so individual risk isn't something we need to get uptight about.
What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier.
Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room.
You are not a genius.